Speeding (mostly excl cameras) Vol 49 [Read Only] - Dynamic Dave

***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 50 *****


Speeding (mostly excl cameras) Vol 48 is closed and this thread has been started.

For the continued discussions around the subject of speeds & speeding, usually excluding cameras which are in another thread.

Older versions will not be deleted, so there is no need to repost any old stuff.

A list of previous volumes can be found here:-
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=18848


DD,
BackRoom Moderator

Edited by Dynamic Dave on 08/10/2009 at 22:34

Child Road Death Statistics - Honestjohn
I received this today from a reader. Plenty of figures to mull over. If I see kids on a sidewalk whether with parents or not I lift off, move as far out from the kerb as sensible and watch the kids, not my speedometer (which probably reads 20mph as I pass them). Then back to a reasonable speed for the conditions.

HJ

Thought you may be interested in the text below which is from
www.safespeed.org.uk if you did not already know of this site. There are some very interesting statistics that counter the nonsense that currently passes for received wisdom - Speed Kills - no it doesn't bad driving kills. Perhaps DH from Yorkshire would like to read this site. Something tells me his mind would not be open to the facts.

It is perfectly clear that people all over the country are re-evaluating their opinions about road safety policy following revelations yesterday and today.

But we have only just begun back on the road to real road safety.

Television advertisements tells us (quite correctly, as it happens) "If you hit me at 30 there's a 20% chance that I will die. If you hit me at 40 there's a 20% chance that I will live."

Department for Transport data published yesterday [1] tells us that 11,000 child pedestrians were injured in built up areas (30mph AND 40mph speed limits) in 2005. We we should expect that more than 20% of those child pedestrians were killed. Right? That's 2,200 dead children.

But reality is entirely different. 47 child pedestrians were killed in built up areas, amounting to 0.47% of the total. That's one fiftieth of the implied claim.

The real world behaviour that saves the children isn't 'sticking to the speed limit' if it was we would have killed thousands. The real world life saving behaviour is drivers slowing down in areas of danger and braking before impact.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. In the real world, many minor crashes are unreported, many more take place with no injury and are unreported and countless thousands of incidents take place where appropriate driver
behaviour ensures that the child isn't hit at all. So we end up with something like:

Built up areas:

11,000 Child pedestrians injured and reported
20,000 Child pedestrians injured and unreported (estimate)
20,000 Child pedestrians hit but not injured (estimate)
200,000 Child pedestrians involved in 'near misses'. (estimate)
-----------------------------------------------
250,000 total incidents resulting in 47 deaths.

It doesn't even matter if the estimates are not very accurate. It is OBVIOUS that a great many incidents take place with very few deaths because of drivers responding to the situation ahead. This 'driver response' is at the true core of road safety.

But if the DfT implied claim were true we would have 50,000 dead child pedestrians, not 47.

And it doesn't even stop there, because a significant but unknown proportion of the deaths are due to 'rogue drivers' - possibly disqualified, in stolen cars, blind drunk, unlicenced, underage or whatever. The risk mitigation behaviour of an 'ordinary' driver is even more effective.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign (www.safespeed.org.uk ) said: "The Department for Transport calls it their '20,30,40 message' I call it deliberately misleading. They think it justifies speed camera policy, I think it damages road safety by forcing road users to concentrate on the wrong safety factor."

"They trot out this rubbish because they are welded to a false belief system. Let me tell them right now that false beliefs will not save lives."

"Department for Transport is not fit for purpose."
Child Road Death Statistics - Aprilia
I am not the worlds greatest fan of speed cameras (having being nicked by one) however I'm sure they are effective in certain circumstances.
In the village near to where I live there is a long straight main road (about 3/4 mile long). Alongside it are a mix of houses and a secondary school.
It has always had a 30mph limit. Up until about 2004 it was not unusual to see drivers doing 50mph+ along that road - sometimes more. There were quite a number of accidents involving children, one of which resulted in a death.
In 2004 mobile speed camera signs were errected and every now and then a camera van turns up. Almost everybody now sticks to the 30mph. I don't think that there have been any more pedestrian accidents since then - I have not heard of any, anyway.

Another thing that gives me some reason to support cameras in the right cicumstances is that our local IAM driving examiner is a traffic officer and goes out to, and investigates, accidents - and he's a strong supporter of cameras on the grounds of safety.
Child Road Death Statistics - Westpig
but for every reasonable one......... and there are some...............there are loads more unreasonable ones and that is the problem. It is the same with speed limits..... no one in their right mind objects to speed limits, of some sort......it is just that they must be reasonable..... and many are not.... If you had the motorways on a 40mph limit no doubt you could argue it is safer and there would be less accidents, but is it reasonable?

If they are unreasonable in the first place, there is a temptation to ignore them (rightly or wrongly).

Even the Human Rights Act, imposed on us from Europe, says things should be Proportionate, Lawful, Appropriate and Necessary... i don't think they are........ and a fair number of other people don't either.
Child Road Death Statistics - Altea Ego
The only unreasonable speed cameras are hidden ones. They are there to slow people down, a camera you cant see does not slow anyone down only prosecute after the event, Horse & stable door syndrome.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
Child Road Death Statistics - Lud
But, TVM, as a lot of people point out, visible cameras distract motorists from the real job in hand (which is driving properly, not staying below some arbitrarily defined speed) and cause them to drive erratically. They are dangerous in themselves, as well as a galloping pain in the fundament. Can't think why anyone without a financial interest has a good word to say for them.
Child Road Death Statistics - Altea Ego
But, TVM, as a lot of people point out, visible cameras distract motorists from the real job in hand (which is driving properly, not staying below some arbitrarily defined speed) and cause them to drive erratically. They are dangerous

Fatuous argument, anyone who cant use a speedo and still concentrate on driving properly should be banned anyway.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
Child Road Death Statistics - madf
I agree with TVM
Letter in Saturday's DT from one reader to HJ saying to the effect "with speed cameras I can't drive properly as I am also glancing down to check my speed"

To which my response is: "failure to control a car properly: unfit to drive... self admitted.."


Some of the muppets I see speeding and on a mobile and passing cars when crossing a pedestrian crossing...
madf
Child Road Death Statistics - Lud
But, TVM and madf, why should they be distracted and harassed by silly flashing yellow boxes by the side of the road? You must have noticed that most of them are in places where it is natural to exceed the speed limit. The posted speed limit is often too low. Or don't you agree?

Why are you defending this awful, pointless, tiresome nanny stuff? Just because it's there?
Child Road Death Statistics - Aprilia
Do we argue against limits that are 'too low' or the enforcement of limit?

I think it is difficult to argue against the enforcement of the law. If its OK to do 40mph in a 30mph is it equally OK to do 50, 60 ?? Where does it stop. Is it OK for the exec in his Merc to break the limit, but not the 'Chav' in his Corsa? I think the problem with speed cameras is that it catches people who are normally honest 'middle class' citizens who don't normally have much interaction with 'the law' and they get a bit steamed up about it.
On the other hand I think that some limits are too low - particularly are recently built roads that are not in residential areas - they often seem to have low limits. It would be better to campaign against inappropriate limits, rather than the enforcement of limits via camera or anything else for that matter.

I am extremely wary of anyone who uses the term 'nanny' - they want to break any rules that don't suit them but are normally the ones that moan first if someone else breaks the rules. In my previous house I had a neighbour who moaned a lot about cars speeding down the hill past his house because it made it dangerous for him and his wife to pull out. After several moans to the police they posted a copper right at the bottom of the hill with a radar gun. One of the first people to be caught was my neighbour, having pulled out of his own driveway and accelerated away past everyone elses!

I certainly don't accept the 'distraction' argument - that really is moronic. Whichever car I'm in, even if its a 'strange' car, I knock it into the appropriate gear and glance at the speedo. Just by listening to the engine revs you can hold the correct speed. A lot of people can't concentrate on their driving because of fiddling with ICE, climate control, talking on a mobile etc, which is half the problem, the other half are trying to drive at 30mph in 5th gear.
Child Road Death Statistics - Honestjohn
I think Aprilia will accept there is a difference between being distacted by a speedometer and not looking at it because you are watching a child on the sidewalk that might run out or fall in front of your car.

HJ
Child Road Death Statistics - Aprilia
Maybe I'm less easily distracted than the average person, but I don't find speedometers especially distracting. If there are children by the road then I would be keeping my eye on them and ease off the throttle - I wouldn't need to check the speedo because I'd be under the limit. Drop to a lower gear (e.g. '3' on a 4-sp auto; '3' on a small 5-sp manual car) when you enter a 30mph limit and one glance at the speedo should help you hold it there. I used to do quite a bit of 'observing' for the IAM and most people found this worked. Problems come when they are in too high a gear and the car's speed wanders.
I'm not being 'holier than thou' about this - I'm not a great fan of speed cameras, but people should argue against them using sound arguments - the distraction one is pretty weak IMHO.
If people genuinely do find controlling their speed to be a problem then consider joining your local IAM group and getting some coaching. They currently have a £75 'Skills for Life' package: www.iam.org.uk/

Child Road Death Statistics - Westpig
i think the point has been lost here......... the point is speed cameras encourage you to keep to the limit at that part of the road......... and if they have been genuinely sited at a danger point, which they allegedly are (although with many of them i'm not convinced)......... then just as you're approaching the danger zone, then you're encouraged to be concentrating on something else...i.e your exact speed via the speedo

if you were driving down a non camera road and saw some potential danger, you wouldn't suddenly start taking your eyes off the road and look at the speedo, would you.......... you would adjust your driving circumstances accordingly, but keep looking at what was going on

many people approach cameras (and the lines on the road, that are often left months,years after the camera has gone), without the faintest idea of what the speed limit is, then brake suddenly just in case they're speeding and don't know it......... how dangerous is that?

then there's the growing list of people who don't register their cars at all, couldn't care too hoots about anyone else, safe in the knowledge they're permanently home and dry.

personally i'd prefer more traffic cops and less cameras........ because the former have discretion (if they choose to use it) and the latter don't................. there are plently of times when a small indiscretion is acceptable, but others when it most definitely is not
Child Road Death Statistics - Dalglish
the point is speed cameras encourage you to keep to the limit at that part of the road......... and if they have
been genuinely sited at a danger point,


if the true intention is safety and to encourage drivers to slow down, i am all for placing those speed display readout boards warning you of excess speed, followed immediately by a camera at the danger zone so that those who have ignored fair warning of the danger spot are then photographed and heavily fined.

Child Road Death Statistics - Westpig
wouldn't have a problem with that..........however without the sneakiness at times there would be considerably less revenue...... and unless you are a complete dingbat, the only people going through the camera then would be the unregistered..... so the point of the camera would have been thoroughly and utterly negated
Child Road Death Statistics - Dalglish
...considerably less revenue...... the point of the camera would have been thoroughly and utterly negated ..

>>
the truth at last. we all know that is what the cameras are for.


Child Road Death Statistics - hxj

>>But if the DfT implied claim were true we would have 50,000 dead child pedestrians

Complete ******** based upon these stats that would be 50,000 children killed for every 51,000 hit. Surely some mistake. Oh I see to try ridicule the figures we estimate that 200,000 children are involved in near misses and then apply the 20% death rate to them. With the greatest respect to safespeed I think that it is fairly apparent that if I've missed a child it is highly unlikely that I will kill them by having hit them!

Given that level of incompetence I wouldn't trust anything that they say!
Child Road Death Statistics - Dalglish
::: note to hj, or the moderators - ::::

the link in the first post has a superfluos "s". it should be www.safespeed.org.uk/


[Thanks - all fixed now... although I suspect this whole thread could be heading for the general speed camera discussion once someone more technically competent than me comes along... PG]

Child Road Death Statistics - madf
I stand by my comments. Any driver who cannot control the pressure of his/her right foot on an accelerator pedal to keep a constant speed for the 2 seconds it requires to read a speedometer should not be driving.

Any one who seriously suggests that trying to keep a constant speed due to speed cameras causes them to lose control .. should not be driving.

And anyone who breaks speed limits by more than 10% should be fined..


I agree about the needs for more traffic police etc. and for fewer confusing road signage.

But I see enough dangerous driving with people speeding and deliberately not paying attention to driving by phoning/smoking/twiddling controls/speeding past schools/overtaking on blind bends/overatking cars on pedestrian corssings/jumping red lights/overtaking on the inside/etc to recognise that most arguments about speed cameras are fallacious and self serving.







madf
Child Road Death Statistics - jase1
Any one who seriously suggests that trying to keep a constant
speed due to speed cameras causes them to lose control ..
should not be driving.
And anyone who breaks speed limits by more than 10% should
be fined..



Absolutely.

I know the approximate speed of my car from the tone of the engine. If I can do it, then so can everyone else. If they can't, get off the road.

Half the problem is people's insistance on doing 30mph in 4th gear, 40mph in 5th etc. Of course they have no control, they're in too high a gear!!

*Every* time I have been "scared" by a speed camera, it's because I've known damn well I was breaking the speed limit.

We all speed from time to time. If you speed, are caught, and don't know you're speeding (which is the implication of needing to look down on the speedo all the time) then you shouldn't be driving. If you speed, are caught, and do know you were speeding, well then it's a fair cop isn't it?

The only people I have any sympathy for who are caught by speed cameras are those who are driving on a strange road where the speed limit has not been explicitly stated on signs (and these roads do exist). So I'd be campaigning for better signposting rather than fewer speed cameras.
Child Road Death Statistics - jase1
> insistance

hmmm, jase can't spell.....
Child Road Death Statistics - Lud
I would say to Aprilia that most drivers, probably, can control their speed and don't drive at mad speeds. The whole point about them is that they are put in places where it's natural to exceed a speed limit which may well be set too low. They make people nervous, and they make a lot of them drive nervously. Not me - I slow down for them without braking - but there are so many jerky unpredictable drivers out there that one really doesn't need them being made more nervous with legal overload. It seeems to me to do more harm than good. And do people who use the term nanny run bleating to nanny if anyone else breaks the rules? I don't think so. It's possible to be a bit too respectable, seems to me.

I think westpig's attitude is pretty sound.

Child Road Death Statistics - Lud
When I refer to 'them', Aprilia, I mean cameras.
Child Road Death Statistics - Aprilia
I would say to Aprilia that most drivers, probably, can control
their speed and don't drive at mad speeds. The whole point
about them is that they are put in places where it's
natural to exceed a speed limit which may well be set
too low. They make people nervous, and they make a lot
of them drive nervously. Not me - I slow down for
them without braking - but there are so many jerky unpredictable
drivers out there that one really doesn't need them being made
more nervous with legal overload. It seeems to me to do
more harm than good. And do people who use the term
nanny run bleating to nanny if anyone else breaks the rules?
I don't think so. It's possible to be a bit too
respectable, seems to me.


I can't quite decode all of that, however I do agree that there are places where the limit appears to be set to low. I would lobby against that sort of thing. However the comment about 'nervous' drivers is bizarre - sure its the nervous ones who should be keeping below the speed limit?! The implication is that they don't have good observation or good control of their cars.
Child Road Death Statistics - paulb {P}
...so I'd be campaigning for better signposting rather than fewer speed cameras.


Better signposting is a great idea. Round here fixed and mobile camera sites have signs up nearby with a pixture of a camera and a reminder of the speed limit; on the dual carriageways, they are electronic and flash a reminder at you.

That is a good idea and seems entirely in keeping with the stated aim of getting people to slow down, but our local camera authority does seem a little more enlightened than some.
Child Road Death Statistics - Vin {P}
"Complete ******** based upon these stats that would be 50,000 children killed for every 51,000 hit. Surely some mistake. Oh I see to try ridicule the figures we estimate that 200,000 children are involved in near misses and then apply the 20% death rate to them. With the greatest respect to safespeed I think that it is fairly apparent that if I've missed a child it is highly unlikely that I will kill them by having hit them!"

Good point.

At the same time, this still leaves 51,000 children hit with total deaths 47, i.e. 1 in 1000. It's still a valid question to ask where the 20% and 80% figures come from.

V
Child Road Death Statistics - Sofa Spud
I cannot agree with the prevailing 'petrolhead' opinion that speed does not kill. Of course it does. Speed is a cause in the vast majority of accidents.

I'll explain: If I'm driving along in a 30 mph zone at 30 and some idiot pulls out point blank in front of me from a side turning and I slam on the brakes but can't avoid a collision, that collision might be 100% the fault of the other driver but my speed, even if it is legal and sensible, was still a contributing cause. If I had been doing 25 mph, I might well have been able to stop.

So driving too fast might not be the main blameworthy reason for ann accident but the speed is still relevant.

I'm NOT making a case for bringing back the Red Flag Act or reducing limits, by the way!
Child Road Death Statistics - Lud
With all due respect SS, everything you say is true enough but all it means is that we would be safer if we kept still. Until we died of starvation, that is.
Child Road Death Statistics - Adam {P}
>>Speed is a cause in the vast majority of accidents.<<

The vast majority? Are you sure about that?
Child Road Death Statistics - cheddar
I cannot agree with the prevailing 'petrolhead' opinion that speed does
not kill. Of course it does. Speed is a
cause in the vast majority of accidents.
I'll explain: If I'm driving along in a 30 mph
zone at 30 and some idiot pulls out point blank
in front of me from a side turning and I slam
on the brakes but can't avoid a collision, that collision might
be 100% the fault of the other driver but my
speed, even if it is legal and sensible, was still a
contributing cause. If I had been doing 25 mph, I
might well have been able to stop.


And if you were doing 40mph you would have been long gone by the time he came to pull out!

It is the proximity of vehicles to each other rather than speed that is the prime cause of accidents proven irrefutably by the fact that motorways where speeds are higher being statistically safer largely due to the opposing traffic being seperated.

Where speed is an issue however, and with ref to the original post, is outside schools, parks, sports centres etc where children as pedestrians are not seperated from the road way by anything more than a kerb.

Child Road Death Statistics - Leif
My concern after seeing how limits are going down faster than John Prescotts trousers is that road safety is all about making us drive so slowly that accidents will by default be safe. I'm going to find a good Chinese source of red flags ready to make a killing when demand rockets.
Child Road Death Statistics - M.M
Well Safespeed as quoted by the "reader" have really beaten the "Nanny" state in making up stats to suit their purpose of twisting the truth. The actual stats may look to be a bit out but to add in a random factor of 23x to up the figures in favour of the Safespeed argument is a joke. About the only kids they have forgotten are the 2 million who may have run into the road and been hit had they not been watching Dr Who at the time.

Ah so it is Dr Who that saves lives not drivers reactions or speed cameras... I've just proved it.

And importantly they are missing the actual words of the ad related to the stats. The ad says if a car *hits* me at 30/40mph. The stats relate to injuries/deaths in places where the speed limit is 30/40mph. Not the same thing.

Nanny's argument never claims the kids in their stats were hit at the max speed the limits allow. So the Safespeed use of twisted stats falls down at that point.

No the Nanny figures already allow for the fact that drivers have reduced their speed by braking before impact. .. that is why the figures appear out.

And following on from that those that want to regulate their own speed with no/higher limits and their own judgement will likely be doing another 10mph at the point they see the kid run out and the extended stopping distance could mean certain death.

David
Child Road Death Statistics - yorkiebar
Just returned from a trip to germany where i was driving at over 100mph in places (quite safely I may add). i didn't die so I can only assume speed doesn't kill; it is the collision that may!

Speed cameras imo can actually cause accidents because too many drivers drive too close and when 1 car slows too quickly for the camera (even though he may be doing a speed of or around the limit in force) forces each car behind to slow progressively harder until an accident occurs. This makes another accident statistic on that section of road and increases the argument of the need for speed cameras.

Bad driving is the cause of most accidents imo not speed. whether death or injury is involved or not.

30 mph outside a school, factory etc at kicking out time is way more dangerous than 100 mph on a clear motorway at 10 pm (in same weather conditions etc). But the safer one will lose your licence if caught where the dangerous one won't even attract attention !

Bad driving kills ! Please drive better ! Simple. imo anyway.
Child Road Death Statistics - madf
"Speed cameras imo can actually cause accidents because too many drivers drive too close and when 1 car slows too quickly for the camera (even though he may be doing a speed of or around the limit in force) forces each car behind to slow progressively harder until an accident occurs"

Logic:

1."too many drivers drive too close "

2." when 1 car slows too quickly for the camera (even though he may be doing a speed of or around the limit in force)"

Nothing whatsoever to do with cameras.. Muppet driving.

Presumably you'd ban accidents because people slow down to watch? :-)))



"30 mph outside a school, factory etc at kicking out time is way more dangerous"

Agree.. So why do people travel at 35-40 (in a 30 mph limit) outside the local scholl.

I could and would agree with most arguments about speed cameras.. IF 99% of motorists don't speed. Judging by the volume of protests, either more than 1% of motorists speed or those who do protest a lot.

Either way I'm am totally unimpressed. The LOGIC of the arguments is... well carp.. seems like the best word I can use..

As for the supposed "estimated" accidenst which don't happen /are not reported.. it is sheer muppetry to argue as they do. No basis in fact or logic.

So until there is a well reasoned argument bourne out by FACTS (as opposed to suppositions or prejudices), the anti speed camera lobby is losing the debate..

I'd love more cameras near to us to prevent the idiots who speed up and down our road not doing it.. oh and the scholl is 100 metres down the road and it is a 30 mph limit..

madf
Child Road Death Statistics - yorkiebar
No problem you have your point of view, others have different.

Mine, I would prefer less cameras and more traffic police. far more chance of catching the people who speed where there are not any cameras and drive bad and go without tax and insurance etc.

But cameras do catch enought to support the argument you have so its ok.

No speeding where the camera is, it will just move 100 yards up the road. the answer then? another camera?
Child Road Death Statistics - Vin {P}
"And importantly they are missing the actual words of the ad related to the stats. The ad says if a car *hits* me at 30/40mph. The stats relate to injuries/deaths in places where the speed limit is 30/40mph. Not the same thing. "

Ok, so taking the stats shown above:

If 47 children were killed on the road, then if everyone was hit at 30mph, that accounts for 235 of the collisions. What about the other 50,765? Were they all hit at under 20mph ( I seem to recall that the claimes statistic for 20mph was 5% fatalities, so the rest must have been *below* 20mph if the stats are to be believed). NB On this basis, if they were all hits at 20mph, that would account for 940 collisions, leaving about 50,000 still unaccounted for.

It all seems a bit improbable to me.

Please note, I'm not interested in the rights or wrongs of speeding here, just in the statistics and claims being made by whoever gave us the 20%/80% figures.

V
Child Road Death Statistics - Westpig
there are many factors that are dangerous... and this can inc speed ....... but not always.

Inappropriate speed....i.e. at a time/place that is questionable.........then fair enough....but...there are times when pushing on a bit is acceptable.....

To concentrate just on one thing... i.e. speed..........is real 'head in the sand' stuff.

examples of other dangerous factors:
-poor eyesight,
-poorly maintained car, (e.g. underinflated tyre, knackered dampers)
-reckless, dangerous or careless driving (which may well be accompanied by speed)
-limited driving skills (not passed test etc)
-poor reaction times (elderly?)
-extreme weather
-poor road surface
-complete 'don't care' attitude (may well be accompanied by no documents etc)

a speed camera will deal with none of these........ however it will criminalise your mum, sister,aunt etc for doing a few mph over the limit somewhere.........and i'm not talking about the one by the local school ot the blind people's home or the hospital etc.......because that's reasonable isn't it.



Child Road Death Statistics - jase1
Here's a theory I've often thought when looking at this whole speed camera/killing kids etc debate.

Given that there are a very large number of drivers who insist on driving around 5-10mph over the speed limit at all times, surely one answer is to use a bit of reverse-psychology on them?

IE if the state wants drivers to go at 30mph on a given road, rather than putting cameras everywhere, just reduce the speed limit to 20 or 25.

That way the flow of traffic will level out at the desired 30mph.

Only problem with this would be the muppets who insist on going 5mph *under* the limit....

Of course in ten years, when Big Brother has got round to putting GPS trackers in every car, we'll all be physically limited to the speed limit, which really could cause accidents as the muppets simply stick their foot on the accelerator in the knowledge that they can't break the speed limit, then forget to take everything in around them.

Personally though I think we should get away from the points/fine culture. Here's one for you ... no fines, no points, caught speeding by more than 20mph three times -- permanent ban. This would at least get rid of the worst of the idiots, with no chance of them getting back on the road.
Child Road Death Statistics - jase1
there are many factors that are dangerous... and this can inc
speed ....... but not always.


Agreed.

As suggested in my previous post, it's the nit-picking punishments that are being handed out that are doing the most damage. We really should be getting more police out there, and looking for the worst offenders. People who speed excessively and repeatedly, reckless/dangerous drivers, people who refuse to maintain and insure cars, inattentive drivers (bad reactions, can't be bothered to signal etc). You give them two warnings then ban them outright. No namby-pamby 12-month suspensions etc. Licence gone -- bus time for you. And if they're caught driving when banned -- jail.

I can guarantee the bad drivers would fall into line in a heartbeat. No-one wants to take the bus to work.
Child Road Death Statistics - artful dodger {P}
>>Department for Transport data published yesterday [1] tells us that 11,000 child pedestrians were injured in built up areas (30mph AND 40mph speed limits) in 2005. We we should expect that more than 20% of those child pedestrians were killed. Right? That's 2,200 dead children.

>>But reality is entirely different. 47 child pedestrians were killed in built up areas, amounting to 0.47% of the total. That's one fiftieth of the implied claim.

As they say there are facts, figures and statistics, but then add a spin doctor to make them what you want them to say.

I was very surprised at how low the figure of child pedestrians being killed per year was. See information below on all road accidents.

In 2005, 671 pedestrians were killed in road accidents in Great Britain, this was 21 per cent of all deaths from road accidents, the lowest total for over 40 years.

The total number of deaths in road accidents fell slightly by 1 per cent to 3,201 in 2005 from 3,221 in 2004. However, the number of fatalities has remained fairly constant over the last ten years.

Just over half (52 per cent) of people killed in road accidents in 2005 were car users. Pedal cyclists and two-wheeled motor vehicle users represented 5 and 18 per cent of those killed respectively. Occupants of buses, coaches, goods and other vehicles accounted for the remaining 4 per cent of road deaths.

The total number of road casualties of all severities fell by 3 per cent between 2004 and 2005 to approximately 271,000 in Great Britain. This compares with an annual average of approximately 320,000 for the years 1994-98 and 324,000 in 1984.

The decline in the casualty rate, which takes into account the volume of traffic on the roads, has been much steeper. In 1964 there were 240 casualties per 100 million vehicle kilometres. By 2005 this had declined to 55 per 100 million vehicle kilometres.

The United Kingdom has a very good record for road safety compared with most other EU countries. In 2004 it had one of the lowest road death rates in the EU, at 5.6 per 100,000 population. The UK rate was also lower than the rates for other industrialised nations such as Japan (6.96 per 100,000 population), and substantially lower than that of Australia (8.15) and the United States (14.66).
tinyurl.com/q3oxq

So only 7% of all pedestrian fatalities were children. To put it bluntly, I am surprised at how low that is considering how some teenagers are oblivious to danger when crossing a busy road, let alone those playing games of chicken (someone I know killed a child playing a game of chicken).

Our roads are some of the safetest in the world, so may be we should be looking for praise at our remarkably low accident figures. The government's aim is try and reduce them still further by an unrealistic 40%. Any accident that causes injury or death that could have been avoided should give lessons to others. Unfortunately this government seems to think speed is the only cause of accidents, when inattention and distraction are the biggest killers.


--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
Child Road Death Statistics - madf
"Our roads are some of the safetest in the world, so may be we should be looking for praise at our remarkably low accident figures. The government's aim is try and reduce them still further by an unrealistic 40%. Any accident that causes injury or death that could have been avoided should give lessons to others. Unfortunately this government seems to think speed is the only cause of accidents, when inattention and distraction are the biggest killers."

I am no fan of the Gov't
but even I can recall:

anti drinking adverts on TV (current)
Think Bike adverts.


which tends to make your "government seems to think speed is the only cause of accidents" rather like your "inattention and distraction " .. cos you obvious were inattentive or distracted when those adverts appeared:-)


Give the Government some credit: they do realise there other other causes of accidents but of course their impact is less if motorists are travelling at or below the legal speed limit....To suggest otherwise is plain wrong for the reasons above..
madf
Child Road Death Statistics - Westpig
Give the Government some credit: they do realise there other other
causes of accidents but of course their impact is less if
motorists are travelling at or below the legal speed limit....To suggest
otherwise is plain wrong for the reasons above..
madf

yes, but for something to be successful, you need people on your side........ you need to sell it, not be heavy handed with it. Alienating vast numbers of the general public ,by giving them 3 points and a £60 fine for often quite minor transgressions is not 'selling' it, particularly when the limit is set artificially low anyway. If the limit itself was more reasonable, more people would obey it wouldn't they.

The other thing is with the speed debate, how far do you go with it, is 40mph acceptable on a motorway... hopefully most would agree not..........it would no doubt be safer though, wouldn't it...

there has to be a happy medium, a balance.
Child Road Death Statistics - madf
"If the limit itself was more reasonable, more people would obey it wouldn't they."

Well it's 30 past our school and they don't so should we raise it to 50 by your logic?

madf
Child Road Death Statistics - Vin {P}
The argument in here reminds me why I never look into the "Speeding" Threads. Conversations about speeding fall into a pattern of abuse, sarcastic responses and deliberate misinterpretation of other's comments.

Why not calm down and accept that there might be a valid viewpoint different from your own.

V
Child Road Death Statistics - Leif
I am sort of on the side of those who believe that speed cameras are okay as they can prevent driving at excessive speed in areas that are prone to accidents. Certainly in the Thames Valley area that seemed to be the case. I saw fixed and mobile cameras on roads that looked fast but which were near houses e.g. Bath Road through Slough. They were signposted and probably worked. Speed cameras in local villages are fine and dandy and get my support though some drivers slow for the cameras, and then zoom off after.

But now that I live in Luton, I have noticed that many cameras are poorly signposted. I was nearly nicked twice by a fixed camera on a dual carriageway in Dunstable. I was doing 40 in a 30 and braked at the last minute once I realised that I was exceeding the limit. I went back to work out what had happened, and found that the 30 signs were placed at the junction with a roundabout. I had been too busy worrying about other cars, which in Luton ignore niceties like lanes, to see the signs. I was at fault, but IMO the signs were not well placed. There are also mobile speed cameras on a dual carriageway in the centre of Luton (near the Toyota garage). I suspect that is a safe road (I might be wrong) and a nice money earner as cars zoom round a corner and 'click, you've been nicked'. And yet on our local road cars zoom along at appalling speeds and not a hint of any form of speed enforcement apart from humps that the speeders ignore.

I have seen some shocking and dangerous driving here in Luton. One evening I counted 4 cars without lights on a dual carriageway at night in the space of a few miles. Not long ago I nearly had a head on when I round a corner on a one way street and was faced with someone driving the wrong way. Cars use the left lane to enter a roundabout and then turn right. They routinely jump lights well after the red appears.

My opinion is that the local police for whatever reason (overwork?) do not enforce driving standards. Whether that is the case, or naivety on my part, I can't say. And I suspect if that is the case, that the policy comes down from above, rather than from ofiicers on the street.
Child Road Death Statistics - Leif
"If the limit itself was more reasonable, more people would obey
it wouldn't they."
Well it's 30 past our school and they don't so should
we raise it to 50 by your logic?
madf


I agree.

I think the problem also is that the safe speed is not always obvious, especially when as is so often the case there are hidden hazards. There are several nasty T junctions to the west of Dunstable. On several occasions I have been waiting to pull out from a side road onto a main road. When there was no traffic I pulled out only to find someone appearing round the corners, at a good rate of knots, lights blazing, and making tut tut head shaking gestures. Clearly these drivers did not notice the warning signs indicating a hidden side road. I sometimes wonder what they think I should do. Get a passing stranger to stand on the far side of the road and act as a lookout?

Leif
Child Road Death Statistics - barchettaman
There is a safe, cheap and effective solution to speeding through built up areas (and consequently reducing the likelihood of hitting a child) - the Spanish one of speed-controlled traffic lights.
Go over the limit and the red lights come on.
Works like a charm.
Only problem is, it doesn´t create revenue, so hasn´t been introduced in the UK.

And the government trumpets that speed cameras save lives etc etc. They are there to provide revenue for scamera partnerships.

Why haven´t *you* written to your MP about this?
Child Road Death Statistics - Lud
There is a safe, cheap and effective solution to speeding through
built up areas (and consequently reducing the likelihood of hitting a
child) - the Spanish one of speed-controlled traffic lights.


Another thing in parts of Spain are sharp double bumps, uncomfortable through any normal car's suspension, on the way into villages. If the official ones don't seem to work, the locals mix up some concrete and put in worse ones of their own. Works a treat. Must wreak havoc on the tyres of hire cars though.
Child Road Death Statistics - teabelly
I have written to my MP about cameras and got the usual rubbish about them being effective. He let Ladyman get away with trotting out that last report which clearly said in an appendix they didn't work and what's more the original draft which I saw in the journal clearly stated they did absolutely nothing for reducing accidents. Funny how the DFT had the report mangled so that little bombshell was hidden in an appendix at the back and from which they only quote the headlines from the consultants paid vast amounts of money to spout whatever dogma they're into this week. Serco imports cameras, they get government contracts. I think they're boss man has a peerage or is line for one. Nuff said.

I will be writing to my MP again in light of the DFT & hospitalisation figures and suggest they concentrate on driver education and removing bad drivers from the roads with traf pols if they want to reduce accidents rather than just dumb down the roads in the same way they have ruined education.

Appropriate speed for the conditions shouldn't increase your probability of having an accident or running over a child. Being inattentive always will. One second's inattention at 30 mph is like travelling at 38mph so it is better to be a few mph over the limit not looking at the speedo rather than being bang on 30 and checking it. A 2 second speedo check as one person suggested as being reasonable makes that into the equivalent of travelling at 46 mph fully attentive which most of in most built up places would consider reckless for Joe Average.
teabelly
Child Road Death Statistics - Westpig
no.......... my logic is that at school times 20mph is more acceptable, but if you post it at 20mph all the time, that is excessively slow for other times of the day......... so it's either variable speed limits, or a make do of 30mph. It might still be dangerous to drive at 30mph, in which case you can be prosecuted for careless or reckless driving, even though you're within the limit, but only by a cop, not a camera.

However at 0500 hours, depending on the road, 40 mph might well be perfectly acceptable, particularly if it's sunny, dry, etc....15 mins later when it's raining 40mph might not be acceptable........

speed cameras cannot deal with this...... they just give you a ticket for 36mph and above.....

so you could travel through at 35mph at 0850 hours wipe out a line of kids and still no flash... however at 0500 you do 36 mph and you're in the book.

sensible...i think not
Child Road Death Statistics - madf
My logic - and I promise to say no more- is that if limits are sensible
- on roads that are clearly marked with "School" and
if it is clear by the nature of the road - twisty, sloping, blind corners - that 30 mph is clealry a very sensible limit to all but the most dim-witted and half asleeep

then IF motorists do 40+, given the above, then some permanent method of enforcement is needed.

I agree about more traffic police, better signage, etc.

But the facts are: many motorists speed where and when it is clearly dangerous to do so given any "normal and rational " view of risk.

Will someone who opposes speed cameras please tell me how they intend to ensure such sensible limits will be enforced 24/7? If not by speed cameras? Or perhaps they will suggest speed humps?:-))


madf
Child Road Death Statistics - yorkiebar
this thread seems to be degenerating into a for and against speed cameras on the basis that speeding is a big problem and cameras cure it.

Whether they cure it or not at the point of a camera is debatealbe, (but certainly it raises revenue and feelings).

However they cannot and do not attack any of the other more dangerous motoring problems that cause fatalaties on the roads. Only humans can do that, i.e. more traffic police.

I am not anti speed limits; I support them. But I am anti camera because they only see a snapshot literally and not the real picture.

Using false statsistics to hide behind to promote them devalues them even more.

there is no excuse for bad driving (the real killer) whether speed is involved or not. It is not the speed that kills remember; its the collision. Good driving at high speed does not kill!

Where when and at what speed is totally different to +5mph etc.
Child Road Death Statistics - Leif
Where when and at what speed is totally different to 5mph etc.


Reducing speed is one way to lessen the severity of an accident albeit without tackling the root cause. The new Specs cameras get round the snapshot argument. They are using them on the M25 and M1 along roadworks and they do slow traffic.

Leif
Child Road Death Statistics - Westpig
yes , but how irritating is it to drive through a 40mph specs limit on a motorway at 0500 hours... when there's no one to protect, workforce wise and very little traffic.........50 would be perfectly acceptable then

there's no arguement at 0830, especially if there are other factors such as inclement weather etc

it's about getting the balance right, not just increasinbgly lowering limits and hammering people for minor transgressions at off peak times

Child Road Death Statistics - Bromptonaut
yes , but how irritating is it to drive through a
40mph specs limit on a motorway at 0500 hours... when there's
no one to protect, workforce wise and very little traffic.........50 would
be perfectly acceptable then


The fact that passing drivers see no workers does not mean they were not around, or potentaily around. The lanes remain narrow and the absence of a hard shoulder increases the trouble for breakdowns irrespective of the time of day.

How much difference does 10mph off the limit for five miles make on a 200 mile , or even a 50 mile, journey?
Child Road Death Statistics - Lud
How much difference does 10mph off the limit for five miles
make on a 200 mile , or even a 50 mile,
journey?


How much difference does 10mph over the posted limit make even in a coned-off single lane beside empty nonfunctioning roadworks on a motorway at 5 am, on a journey of any length at all?
SP20 Speeding Offence - Peter D
What does this code relate to. It is for exceeding the limit for a non googs/passenger vehicle. Is this for towing a trailer or a caravan or an agrilcultural vehicle. Regards Peter
SP20 Speeding Offence - LeighB
Is it the one for towing a trailer in the third lane of a motorway?

I got done for that many years ago just south of Bristol on the M5, all lanes doing 2- - 30 mph up hill, I was stuck behind a van pouring black smoke and pulled over to avoid the smokescreen. Was spotted from bridge and they pursued me and booked me for it!
I seem to recall it was SP20.

Amusingly when I took my documents into my local nick, the desk sergeant - whom I knew well as I was a local Police Surgeon - said "whose a naughty boy then? What have you been up to Doc?"
I told him "towing a trailer in the outside lane of a motorway" and he said "I didn't know that was illegal!"
SP20 Speeding Offence - Armitage Shanks {p}
Google has the anser!

SP10 = Exceeding goods vehicle speed limits
SP20 = Exceeding speed limit for type of vehicle (excluding goods or passenger vehicles)
SP30 = Exceeding statutory speed limit on a public road
SP40 = Exceeding passenger vehicle speed limit
SP50 = Exceeding speed limit on a motorway
SP50 = Undefined speed limit offence

Hard work pays off in the future - Laziness pays off now!
SP20 Speeding Offence - Altea Ego
pulled over to avoid the smokescreen

I would have been tempted to argue that one in court. You are allowed to use the third lane to avoid an obstruction (not a simple overtake mind) or for reasons of safety.

The smoke screen was IMHO a safety hazzard
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
SP20 Speeding Offence - LeighB
Thanks TVM,
I guess it was more of a health hazard than safety hazard, I could see perfectly well, just didn't want to spend next mile or so crawling up hill inhaling diesel fumes! Very hot day, closing all windows and the ventilation not really an option - no aircon back then :-(
SP20 Speeding Offence - Altea Ego
ah well - stuffed then - next time perhaps
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
SP20 Speeding Offence - PW
Seems to be commonplace these days to see trailers in lane 3. Got overtaken by a Nissan pick up towing a double axle trailer in lane 3 a few weeks back, I was doing 80 and he shot past me so guess was going 90-95.

That is by far and away the most extreme- but have seen at least one or two a week over the last few months.
SP20 Speeding Offence - Peter D
The reason for the question is due to a Biker getting an SP20, clearly in error but what would his insurance company make of it. Regards Peter
SP20 Speeding Offence - Wales Forester
If it's been issued to a bike in error it may well be null and void. I'm sure one of the legal experts will be along shortly.
This will cheer you up! - PhilW
Browsing my copy of Auto Express, I came across an "exclusive" which (and I can't give a link - it isn't on the site) states that MPs have "devised a cost effective way of cutting legal limits on all roads at a stroke. Nia Griffiths MP for Llanelli wants speed limit signs to be read in KPH instead of MPH. "
The limit on M-ways would therefore be 70kph (43 mph).
This would "make roads safer " and "few people realise how much of an economy they can make by travelling more slowly but at present they are unable to without feeling they are holding up other road users". Lynne Featherstone - Lib Dem Hornsey backed this up- "a good idea " because it would be "very cheap to implement"
Who do these people represent?
--
Phil
This will cheer you up! - mfarrow
That's got to be a windup.

--------------
Mike Farrow
This will cheer you up! - Armitage Shanks {p}
They will have to change the law re the display of distances first! There is a group of people who are great, who go around painting out any signs saying "Parking 200 metres" etc because they are illegal. When accosted they claim to be rectifying an illegal sign. Distances can only be legally displayed as feet/yards/miles as things are at the moment.
This will cheer you up! - PhilW
"Distances can only be legally displayed as feet/yards/miles as things are at the moment."
Don't encourage them AS - the limit will be 70 yards per hour!

--
Phil
This will cheer you up! - Dipstick
Traffic in Cambridge was bad enough tonight to be nearer 70 hours per yard.

Lucky I was cycling for the first time in twenty years really!

This will cheer you up! - cockle {P}
Probably from the same school of thought as one of our local councillors who thought that the solution to the graffitti problem which is making the local parks look untidy was to bulldoze ALL buildings in the parks so that the 'taggers' wouldn't have any surfaces to spray on. After all went the argument, the parks are public open space and all these buildings only clutter the parks up and if they were wide open spaces the public would like that more and be encouraged to use the parks more. Cue looks of astonishment from local ex-cricketer mayor and all the golf and bowls playing councillors, followed by much slow shaking of heads as they pondered the backlash from all the local sportsmen and ladies in the town who were about to have all their clubhouses demolished if this person had their way.
To keep it motoring related, these are the same people we elect to keep our road and transport system up to scratch, on second thoughts, perhaps it's not that surprising really.........
This will cheer you up! - JamesH
Said MP probably never drives, as motorways have no speed limit signs apart from temporary restrictions.

My Octavia TDI needs to be above 55mph to sit comfortably in sixth gear. So me pootling along at 70km/h in fourth would be bad for the environment.

James
This will cheer you up! - Armitage Shanks {p}
Hot air from either end of an MP is bad for the environment too!
This will cheer you up! - Stuartli
>>as motorways have no speed limit signs>>

There are some motorways with 70mph speed limits signs and even 50mph on some stretches in certain cases in the UK ...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
This will cheer you up! - Clanger
Presumably it won't be necessary to ban tractors, livestock and mopeds from the motorways once the KPH suggestion is implemented because the speed differential will be reduced.
Hawkeye
-----------------------------
Stranger in a strange land
This will cheer you up! - martint123
tinyurl.com/y8mpqe

tinyurl.com/y7cxft {Both links to www.thisishull.co.uk shortened as was screwing up the page width - DD}

" Speed limits on every road in the East Riding are to be reviewed in a bid to cut the number of deaths in the region.
Trunk roads with 60mph limits are likely to be the first to be assessed to decide if they should be reduced to 50mph or 40mph.
And speed limits on roads in small villages could be cut from 30mph to 20mph."

Ker-ching.
The way to beat speed traps - barney100
This solution would require a great deal of self restraint ...determination and sheer narrow mindedness! Motorists should strictly observe all speed limits to the nth degree. The authorities would lose money hand over fist and have to withdraw cameras and traps on financial grounds. I shall start a one man campaign now to drive at the speed required and bankrupt the council!.....anyone want to make it two?
The way to beat speed traps - Bill Payer
I've advocated this too - it would be very interesting to see what happened, as the Scamera Pratnership's business models are based on them catching at least a certain number of people to cover their costs.

I guess another way of looking at it is that it's just another form of tax - you can avoid having to pay it in various ways (one of which is to obey every speed limit) just like you can avoid tax on fags by not smoking. If other people are happy to make their contribution, then let them, they're saving you money that would have to be raised some other way.
The way to beat speed traps - Dipstick
Have to admit I do this anyway, not through any political point, I just feel comfortable with it and find it no hardship to obey all the speed limits.

I can't be certain I don't break any unintentionally but I make best efforts, including speed camera database in the satnav as a reminder. It's very rare indeed my system says, for example, "no more than 60 please" and I find I actually am going faster than 60.

Just reduces the stress.

The way to beat speed traps - stunorthants
Ive never understood the fuss surrounding cameras as they only catch you if you break the law, so why complain?
I for one dont go into a braking panic or crawl past a 30mph camera at a guilty 20mph because I have no problem sticking to the limit.
Infact, I would say the only sort of people who honestly cant deal with doing the limit are those who cant use their indicators either!

Its indeed very stressfree if you drive within the law because you dont have to worry everytime you see a police car or camera.
The way to beat speed traps - mike hannon
But people do make honest mistakes - or is it only me?
The way to beat speed traps - Adam {P}
Try obeying the limit around here and you'll go through brake pads quicker, have every single car tailgate you and have to contend with dodgy cameras.

Other than that, you'll have a whale of a time.
The way to beat speed traps - yorkiebar
Stu it must be great to drive at legal speeds (no problem there; i try to) but to know how many illegal motorists the cameras catch really must make you happy?

This subject always comes back to the belief that cameras catch the real offending motorists.

They don't, but I do agree they catch enough speeders to be kept in place.

The worst offences imo are the uninsured, dangerous drivers etc who may tootle everywhere at 40; including through towns, except past that camera because they know its posititon!

bring back traffic police imo if you want better speeding prevention, insurance and mot compliance etc etc.
Speed limits in kph? - Zebra
An MP has suggested that the our current UK speed limits should be treated as being in km/hr rather than miles/hr, to save energy, reduce casualties, etc.

It is claimed that the cost of the switch would be negligible, because signs would not need to be changed.

Wizard wheeze or shooting the breeze, do you think?

Zebra
Speed limits in kph? - TheOilBurner
Surely a late April's fool? If the maximum motorway 70 limit became 42mph that isn't even the ideal speed for economy.

As for residential 20mph limits, 12mph is just a joke. You'll be getting tailgated by even the slowest cyclists!! LOL!

Any links to prove this madness isn't just a joke? ;)
Speed limits in kph? - Zebra
Proposed by Nia Griffith, Llanelli (Lab), according to Teletext.

Zebra
Speed limits in kph? - Adam {P}
>>Proposed by Nia Griffith, Llanelli (Lab), according to Teletext.<<

tinyurl.com/ydlajx

Why am I not surprised?
Speed limits in kph? - TheOilBurner
Do you think she's a big fan of Top Gear? ;)
Speed limits in kph? - Lud
I cannot say clearly what I think of this MP in this forum because my words may come to the notice of a person of tender or puritanical sensibilities.

So let's say shooting the breeze, or shooting something anyway, shall we?
Speed limits in kph? - Collos25
Would not make much difference in cities especially London
Speed limits in kph? - local yokel
I think the MP has been somewhere very hot while on his 96 day recess, and the heat has driven him mad.

I'll make him a suggestion - leave the signs as they are, and calibrate the limits in metres per second...




For those without a calculator, 70 mph = 30 m/sec!
Speed limits in kph? - TheOilBurner
So 70 metres a second = 155mph!!! That's handy for all those German cars with the speed limiters fitted! :)
You can put you foot right down and still be legal - I'll buy into that...
Speed limits in kph? - Stuartli
The problem is that we have so many barmpots holding positions where they can freely express or inflict on us some of their often bizarre views or ideas and know that others of similar ilk will support them.

My local council, for a start, along with some of the senior officials, seem to be composed of many of them - hence a decision, for instance, to block one of the town's main through road routes and pedestrianise it.

The result, of course, was initial traffic chaos and eventually the gradual decline of motoring visitors, along with the gradual and continuing demise of the shopping centre that pedestrianisation was promoted to boost trade.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
Speed limits in kph? - runboy
Minimal cost eh? How does that work out?

Publicise the new rules

Reprint/extra pages for countless law books/police paperwork

Re-calibration of speed cameras

Motor manufacturers changing over to new speedo dials

And not to mention the traffic chaos on the motorway

I say lets go for it, got nothing better to do this Friday afternoon ;-)
Speed limits in kph? - PhilW
Please keep up!!
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=45467&...e
;-)

Mind you, not made easy when a thread on suggested speed limit changes by the government is shifted to the "Speeding" thread.


--
Phil

Thread now merged - DD
Unmarked police cars avoid Naming driver - Armitage Shanks {p}
No regular readers of this forum and/or this thread will be amazed to learn that out of 161 unmarked police cars caught speeding, just in SouthYorkshire, the police were unable to name the driver or the named driver was not prosecuted in 147 cases. 13 officers paid fixed penalties and 1 appreared in court. (Details from todays Daily Telegraph)
 

Ask Honest John

Value my car